BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Wratten v Kent County Council [1997] UKEAT 1178_97_1512 (15 December 1997)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/1178_97_1512.html
Cite as: [1997] UKEAT 1178_97_1512

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


BAILII case number: [1997] UKEAT 1178_97_1512
Appeal No. EAT/1178/97

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 15 December 1997

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER CLARK

MR R JACKSON

MRS D M PALMER



MR J WRATTEN APPELLANT

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING - EX PARTE

© Copyright 1997


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MR J FITZPATRICK
    (Representative)
    Kent Law Clinic
    University of Kent
    Canterbury
    CT2 7NS
       


     

    JUDGE PETER CLARK: The question raised in this appeal is whether the Industrial Tribunal incorrectly and impermissibly, as a matter of law, restricted the scope of their enquiry under s.98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in the form of their self-direction contained in paragraph 22 of their extended reasons dated 13th August 1997.

    We think that the point is arguable, bearing in mind the authority cited by Mr Fitzpatrick in support of the appeal.

    We also think that the appeal raises a question of causation. To what extent were the events culminating in the unfair treatment, as the Industrial Tribunal found, in 1995, linked to the decision to dismiss on grounds of redundancy in late 1996? Does it matter for the purposes of s.98(4).

    All these are matters which in our view require full argument at a subsequent appeal hearing. We shall direct that the matter proceed to a full appeal hearing. The appeal to be listed for half a day. Category C. Skeleton arguments to be exchanged between the parties not less than 14 days before the date fixed for the appeal hearing and copies to be lodged with this tribunal.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1997/1178_97_1512.html